If 2024 was a time of legal transformation, the NCAA experienced a year of legal chaos in 2023.
Under the management of previous Massachusetts Gov. The NCAA, according to Charlie Baker, had more success in jury. The undergraduate regulating brain persuaded judges to preserve the isolation of NIL from work, examine prize money rules and embrace the lawfulness of NCAA enforcement measures.
The NCAA is slowly evolving into a variance of a major professional sports league as a result of negotiating a multibillion-dollar agreement calling for colleges to give athletes and, thus far, failing to stop the development of efforts to understand university athletes as employees.
Here are highlights —or lowlights, depending on your perspective—from college activities legislation in 2024:
Dartmouth Men’s Basketball Players Are People, and the NLRB Recognizes That They Work Together.
The most legally significant development in college sports in 2024 occurred in February, when NLRB regional director Laura Sacks ruled that Dartmouth College men’s basketball players were employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act ( NLRA ).
She urged that people view the situation as one about work, no sports, and that the appropriate legal question is not whether the hockey plan is profitable because most major corporations report deficits from time to time and their employees don’t omitt to become interns. To that end, Sacks said the players are employees because they qualify under the applicable legal test: They perform work for Dartmouth in exchange for compensation ( including preferred admissions into an elite university, per diem, clothing, shoes, etc. ) and the university has the authority to oversee that activity.
Key to the situation: Dartmouth College has a tradition of employing students who in turn unionize, as students who work in dining services have done so and their union negotiated terms with their employer ( i. e., Dartmouth ). The Dartmouth hockey players therefore voted to unionize, including a player who also works in dining establishments. The participants became the first union university employee-athletes in British history.
The board of the agency has yet to decide whether to review or reject Baskets ‘ decision, despite the fact that Dartmouth College has petitioned for it to do so.
USC basketball and men’s and women’s basketball players may soon get NLRA work recognition as well. The University of Southern California, the Pac-12, and the NCAA are shared companies of Trojans basketball and men’s and women’s hockey people, according to NLRB Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws. She may decide whether Southern athletes are people within the significance of the NLRA and misclassified as student-athletes.
There are many theories suggesting that President-elect Donald Trump may change the NLRB so that it becomes less sensitive to assuming that university athletes are employees, but that theory may not be accurate. Even if it does, it might not eventually problem. The question of whether these players are workers will almost certainly be reviewed by a federal appeals court and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, the NLRB is not going to include the final say.

Additionally, it may open the door for other D-I sportsmen at private schools to pursue wages if the Dartmouth players continue to be unionized employees. The future employment of players at public colleges isn’t governed by the NLRA but is instead subject to state labour rules that vary widely across the country. House, Carter, and Hubbard Litigations are the subject of a historic settlement that NCAA negotiates to resolve.
Baker was known as a pragmatic dealmaker rather than an ideologue while he served as governor. When the NCAA, which has long stridently fought to break down the House, Carter, and Hubbard antitrust litigations that would allow colleges to pay athletes directly and subject to a pro sports salary cap style cap, reached a settlement.
The settlement also calls for the NCAA and member institutions to pay some D-I athletes who have played since 2016 about$ 2.8 billion, with payments ranging widely by sport and other factors. The payments would be spread over a 10-year period and would be in line with compensation for recent losses of NIL, video game, and broadcast opportunities for athletes.
U. S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement and will consider giving final approval after hearing from objections and other concerns in a fairness hearing scheduled for April 7, 2025. Colleges can choose to pay athletes for media rights, sponsorships for tickets, and NIL if the deal goes ahead. Those schools, however, cannot exceed annual payments of about$ 21 million total. Additionally, NIL agreements with third parties over$ 600 will be subject to potential independent review to prevent those agreements from being marketed as NIL deals.
Wilken’s review of the settlement is based on whether it addresses the antitrust issues at play in the three cases and whether the settlement complies with the legal requirement that it is fair, reasonable and adequate to class members. Although it is possible that the settlement’s implementation will lead to separate legal disputes involving immigration, immigration, and other laws, Wilken will concentrate on the antitrust aspects.
There’s no getting around the fact that college sports in the post-settlement world will look more like pro sports. Some teams are becoming more innovative by appointing general managers, while others have job responsibilities that are unmatched by those of elite teams.

But as always in law, it’s wise to not make assumptions and even wiser to make backup plans.
Wilken is the key figure at this point. She initially objected to granting preliminary approval of the settlement in a hearing where attorneys for the NCAA and players seemed confident—perhaps too confident—that she would readily approve. As was evident in the Google Book Settlement’s collapse, settlements can also be rejected. Wilken could delay granting approval so that the deal doesn’t go into effect for another year or two. In Johnson v. NCAA, the Federal Appeals Court Sides With Players.
In July, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the NCAA’s motion to dismiss Johnson v. NCAA. College athletes in the case assert that they are employees of their universities and the NCAA in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ( FLSA ) and other state laws that guarantee the right to minimum wage and, if applicable, overtime pay. The Third Circuit rejected the NCAA’s longstanding position that college athletes cannot be employees and athletes at the same time.
College athletes would be owed at least the same benefits as their work-study classmates as FLSA employees, some of whom are figuratively paid to attend games where their classmates aren’t paid. Johnson could lead to the NCAA and colleges being ordered to pay many millions of dollars in unpaid wages and compelled to drop rules blocking pay.
The case has since been returned to a Pennsylvania federal district court, but so far it has been successful. FLSA employment recognition would not allow the players to unionize. Unionization would instead require, among other things, NLRA employment recognition ( for private college athletes ) or state-equivalent employment recognition ( for public college athletes ). Diego Pavia Takes on NCAA JUCO Rules and Wins ( for Now )
NIL and the transfer portal have changed the landscape for college athletes, but some athletes still have more choices than others. Enter Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia, who in November sued the NCAA in hopes of landing a preliminary injunction that would allow him to play in the 2025-26 season. He is challenging NCAA antitrust laws that prohibit JUCO transfers from extending beyond three years and count his two years of junior college at New Mexico Military Institute against his eligibility. The NCAA argues these rules comply with antitrust law.
According to Chief U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell Jr. in Tennessee last week, he obtained a preliminary injunction on the grounds that, given NIL and other developments, college athletes work in an increasingly professionalized “labor market” for college football and that restricting JUCO players poses a problem under antitrust law. The NCAA can, and likely will, appeal. Players who remain NCAA athletes for a potentially long time and earn NIL and revenue share money as a result of Pavia’s victory may face additional challenges to NCAA eligibility rules as a result of their victories.
NCAA Loses Key Case Involving Restrictions on NIL Collectives
Although their levels vary, many NIL collectives appear to be using recruiters as tools to snag money to get people to choose a particular school. That type of activity is not “NIL”, which is intended to reflect the commercial use of an athlete’s right of publicity through endorsements, sponsorships and influencing deals, but is instead pay-for-play.
In February, U.S. District Judge Clifton Corker issued a preliminary injunction barring the organization from enforcing rules prohibiting college athletes and recruits from negotiating compensation for NIL with collectives and boosters. Corker reasoned that those rules, which were challenged by Virginia and Tennessee, amount to price fixing by competing businesses. These institutions collaborate with colleges to establish limits on athlete compensation through the NCAA. The ruling was a blow to the NCAA, which a week later suspended enforcement of those rules. NIL Contract Chaos Spirals Into Court
In a lawsuit filed in May, University of Georgia quarterback Jaden Rashada accuses University of Florida head football coach Billy Napier, UF recruiters and boosters of fraudulent inducement and related claims stemming from what Rashada thought was an enforceable$ 13.85 million NIL deal in 2022. The defendants contend that there was no agreement and that Rashada is exaggerating typical recruiting promises.
Although it didn’t spark a lawsuit, quarterback Matthew Sluka abruptly announced on social media in September that he was leaving UNLV because a school-related collective didn’t pay him what he thought was a$ 100, 000 NIL deal. One of the problems with NIL is illustrated by the Rashada and Sluka cases, which were used not legally intended to compensate a college athlete for the commercial use of their publicity rights, but instead as a recruiting inducement, aka pay-to-play. NCAA Enforcement Authority Scores Legal Win in Ole Miss Case
Under Baker’s leadership, the NCAA is in the midst of significant reforms, but it won several legal victories in 2024 to strengthen its longstanding authority over college sports.
In December, the Supreme Court of Mississippi ruled for the NCAA in a case where a former Ole Miss assistant athletic director challenged the constitutionality of the NCAA’s sanctions. The court determined that the NCAA, a private membership organization with a voluntary annexation of member schools and conferences, is not a state actor ( a branch of the government, similar to a public university ), and can impose membership regulations without having to adhere to due process and other constitutional safeguards.
NCAA Defeats NIL Lawsuit Brought by Overtime Elite Players
The NCAA has repeatedly argued that compensation is not provided for an athlete’s paid-to-play or employment when they are using their publicity rights for commercial purposes. U. S. District Judge Robert Gettleman agreed when he denied motions brought by two former Overtime Elite ( OTE ) players—twin 20-year-old brothers Matt and Ryan Bewley—who maintained that although they received employment benefits while playing in OTE, that compensation ought to count as NIL. In a win for the NCAA, Gettleman emphasized that college sports offer a “unique product” in an effort to stand out as a provider of a different product from professional sports. NCAA Defeats Prize Money Preliminary Injunction
Reese Brantmeier, a University of North Carolina tennis player, was denied a preliminary injunction to prohibit the NCAA’s rules in October when U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles granted her request for a preliminary injunction. Eagles was persuaded by NCAA arguments that the rules advance amateurism goals and stressed that the rules are unlikely to harm competition in an antitrust sense since they impact a relatively tiny number of elite college athletes. The NCAA has reason to believe that antitrust objections can be overcome by at least some of its amateurism rules, according to the decision. NCAA Ends Ban on CHL Players In Face of Antitrust Lawsuit
Effectively, the NCAA’s ban on Canadian hockey players, which is premised on those players being “pro” in that they are paid, ended in November. The ban had become increasingly difficult to justify given that the NCAA allows D-I schools to play former pro hockey players from European teams even though they were pro athletes and given that college athletes can be paid for NIL. The NCAA’s decision also came as it was facing a lawsuit brought by Rylan Masterson, an Ontario hockey player, who claimed that the NCAA and its affiliated institutions had conspired to “boycott” him and other players who were similarly situated. The Ivy League Defeats Antitrust Challenge Over No Athletic Scholarship Policy
An antitrust lawsuit brought by the Ivy League and its eight member schools was won by the Ivy League and its eight member institutions. In October, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit mainly on grounds that Ivy League sports is not a relevant market for antitrust scrutiny since athletes can attend other colleges that blend elite academics with D-I sports and receive athletic scholarships at those schools. However, the Ivy League will undergo significant changes as it begins the 2025 season and will participate in the NCAA Division I FCS playoffs. College Stars From Years Ago Sue Over Unpaid NIL
Although the tentatively agreed settlement to settle the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust disputes would, if granted final approval, compensate some D-I college athletes for uncompensated use of their NIL provided they played as far back as June 15, 2016, that time frame ( which is limited by applicable statutes of limitation ) doesn’t help college stars from years earlier who would have made NIL money.
Several lawsuits were brought in 2014, including members of the 1983 N. C. State men’s basketball championship team, a group of athletes who played for the 1997, 2008, 2011 and 2014 NCAA men’s basketball championship teams, a group of former Michigan football stars, and Reggie Bush, who is suing USC, the Pac-12 and the NCAA. These cases face challenges, such as the fact that antitrust claims typically have a four-year statute of limitations and that EdO’Bannon’s successful litigation has already resolved these claims. Pac-12 Conference, Mountain West and Grand Canyon Litigate Grievances
The Pac-12 sued the Mountain West Conference for imposing so-called “poaching penalties” on five member schools that will join the Pac-12 in 2026 ( Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State, and Utah State ). The penalties are allegedly$ 55 million. The Mountain West contends that the legal claims relate to a fee arrangement that was legally approved. In a related development, the West Coast Conference sued Grand Canyon University, which had pledged to join the WCC in the 2025-26 season, after Grand Canyon spurred the WCC to join the Mountain West by no later than 2026. Litigation has indeed appeared even though these schools and conferences signed contracts meant to cover all possible situations and prevent litigation. Expect more as conferences continue to realign.
FSU and Clemson fight in court for media rights; ACC Fights Conference Members.
It’s uncommon for a conference member to sue the league, and even more uncommon for multiple members to do so, yet that happened in 2024. In essentially two cases, Florida State and Clemson have litigated the ACC in different states ‘ courts regarding how much money a school would have to pay as a penalty to leave the ACC and whether the ACC handled media rights contracts in accordance with fiduciary obligations. There are other issues packed in, but the cases are largely about member schools ‘ frustrations with revenue and limitations on how readily they can leave a conference. How these cases play out, given the role that conference realignment has played in recent years, might have an impact on conference membership contracts in efforts to improve stability. Eligibility of Transgender Athletes Takes Legal, Political Significance
Other than for two co-ed sports, competitive cheer and competitive dance, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics ( NAIA ) effectively outlaws transgender athletes from all women’s sports this year. Also, several noteworthy lawsuits concerning transgender athletes were filed, including one led by former University of Kentucky All-American swimmer Riley Gaines. She contends that the NCAA violates Title IX, the Equal Protection Clause, and the right to bodily privacy by allowing the eligibility of transgender athletes, denies opportunities for female athletes, and denies these rights. Meanwhile, 25 states restrict or ban transgender athletes and President-elect Trump vowed during the presidential campaign to ban transgender athletes from women’s sports, though any federal ban would likely face legal challenge.